Are we protected from Junk Food Corporations?

"DonQuijote1954" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

The legislation is moving to protect, of course, the rights of the
food corporations not to be sued. How can they ever be on the side of
the public?

They are. They require that food ingredients and nutrition content be given
to costumers who as for it. And the chains usually post this on their
websites.

The government requires that restaurant workers not touch the food (wear
gloves), not have rats running around, not advertise falsely, keep the food
either below 40 F or above 140 F (to prevent bacterial growth), etc.

I think this legislation, which only prevents the food companies from not
being sued for making people fat, is in the best interests of the public.
Otherwise, the food companies will have to raise prices and do other
negative things for people not using their brains.

Quoted message said:

Even the new sugar intake guidelines is watered down to
say nothing that offends big food corporations. They argue that
whoever eats junk food is responsible for it...

Yeah. I have seen a lot of managers at fast food stores forcing people to
eat their junk. And all that candy, soda, etc., they eat at home is not at
fault.

Bottom line is that people have nutrition info available. They are the ones
who benefit when they follow it and the ones who suffer when they don't.

Quoted message said:

It happens though that you can argue the same thing for cigarettes,
whose manufacturers are very much liable for it.

Cigarette makers are only responsible for not telling costumers about the
dangers of smoking. Not for making cigerettes dangerous.

Quoted message said:

And then there's the
other issue of smoking being a decision that you take when you are an
adult, not a helpless child in front of the television screen who's
bombarded with "Happy Meal" propaganda.

And parents are responsible for helping kids make these decisions and learn
how to make them well.

Quoted message said:

Sure enough, there's legislation banning advertising on children
television in Denmark and other Scandinavian countries. Should others
be protected as well?

No arguement here.

Illegally copied article deleted.

Jeff

"Jeff" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

"DonQuijote1954" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

The legislation is moving to protect, of course, the rights of the
food corporations not to be sued. How can they ever be on the side of
the public?

They are. They require that food ingredients and nutrition content be given
to costumers who as for it. And the chains usually post this on their
websites.

That's like old Greek to the poor who don't know things like
"hydrogenated oil"...

Quoted message said:

The government requires that restaurant workers not touch the food (wear
gloves), not have rats running around, not advertise falsely, keep the food
either below 40 F or above 140 F (to prevent bacterial growth), etc.

That's food safety. Probably required in Bangladesh too.

Quoted message said:

I think this legislation, which only prevents the food companies from not
being sued for making people fat, is in the best interests of the public.
Otherwise, the food companies will have to raise prices and do other
negative things for people not using their brains.

Raising prices dramatically would only make them lose customers.
Perhaps they can come up with healthier alternatives for some pennies
more. Try the veggie burgers at Wild Oats or Whole Foods and you won't
be disappointed. "Terra Frites" (bagged french fries) are heavenly.
Their cola soda (at $1.99 the six pack) is even better than "the real
thing"... 😉

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Even the new sugar intake guidelines is watered down to
say nothing that offends big food corporations. They argue that
whoever eats junk food is responsible for it...

Yeah. I have seen a lot of managers at fast food stores forcing people to
eat their junk. And all that candy, soda, etc., they eat at home is not at
fault.

Monkey see, monkey do.

Quoted message said:

Bottom line is that people have nutrition info available. They are the ones
who benefit when they follow it and the ones who suffer when they don't.

I know, but to the blind, the whole world is dark.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It happens though that you can argue the same thing for cigarettes,
whose manufacturers are very much liable for it.

Cigarette makers are only responsible for not telling costumers about the
dangers of smoking. Not for making cigerettes dangerous.

It says it in the package. Is people blind? 😉

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

And then there's the
other issue of smoking being a decision that you take when you are an
adult, not a helpless child in front of the television screen who's
bombarded with "Happy Meal" propaganda.

And parents are responsible for helping kids make these decisions and learn
how to make them well.

The parents--being uneducated--are just as victims as the kids. And
blaming them would amount to never ever doing something.

"DonQuijote1954" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Jeff" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"DonQuijote1954" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

The legislation is moving to protect, of course, the rights of the
food corporations not to be sued. How can they ever be on the side of
the public?

They are. They require that food ingredients and nutrition content be

given

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

to costumers who as for it. And the chains usually post this on their
websites.

That's like old Greek to the poor who don't know things like
"hydrogenated oil"...

There are these places called "libraries" that have books with information
about this.

And, of course, the internet.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The government requires that restaurant workers not touch the food (wear
gloves), not have rats running around, not advertise falsely, keep the

food

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

either below 40 F or above 140 F (to prevent bacterial growth), etc.

That's food safety. Probably required in Bangladesh too.

Quoted message said:

I think this legislation, which only prevents the food companies from

not

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

being sued for making people fat, is in the best interests of the

public.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Otherwise, the food companies will have to raise prices and do other
negative things for people not using their brains.

Raising prices dramatically would only make them lose customers.
Perhaps they can come up with healthier alternatives for some pennies
more. Try the veggie burgers at Wild Oats or Whole Foods and you won't
be disappointed. "Terra Frites" (bagged french fries) are heavenly.
Their cola soda (at $1.99 the six pack) is even better than "the real
thing"... 😉

The only reason why they sell the stuff they do is that people buy it.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Even the new sugar intake guidelines is watered down to
say nothing that offends big food corporations. They argue that
whoever eats junk food is responsible for it...

Yeah. I have seen a lot of managers at fast food stores forcing people

to

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

eat their junk. And all that candy, soda, etc., they eat at home is not

at

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

fault.

Monkey see, monkey do.

Quoted message said:

Bottom line is that people have nutrition info available. They are the

ones

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

who benefit when they follow it and the ones who suffer when they don't.

I know, but to the blind, the whole world is dark.

Yeah, but the blind can access the internet and learn.

And sighted people, too.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It happens though that you can argue the same thing for cigarettes,
whose manufacturers are very much liable for it.

Cigarette makers are only responsible for not telling costumers about

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

dangers of smoking. Not for making cigerettes dangerous.

It says it in the package. Is people blind? 😉

The cigarette companies have been sued by people who started smoking in the
50s and 60s, IIRC. No one who started suing the cigarette makers since then,
TTBMK, have sued them.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

And then there's the
other issue of smoking being a decision that you take when you are an
adult, not a helpless child in front of the television screen who's
bombarded with "Happy Meal" propaganda.

And parents are responsible for helping kids make these decisions and

learn

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

how to make them well.

The parents--being uneducated--are just as victims as the kids. And
blaming them would amount to never ever doing something.

Yeah, but the key is education, not stupid laws.

Jeff

"Jeff" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<cgtk92

Quoted message said:

And parents are responsible for helping kids make these decisions and learn
how to make them well.

What a dumb ass. So MILLIONS of kids must suffer because of the
millions of unfit parents in the world? FACE THE FACTS!! THERE ARE
UNFIT PARENTS!!!! That will never change! That is no excuse to let
immoral corporations pray off them!! Bombarding easily manipulated
children with their mind control. I can not even describe how moronic
your logic is. Do you even think about the absurd argument you are
making? We are talking about innocent impressionable children here
who have no control over what kind of parents they have. How about
instead forcing these corporations to pay for adds during cartoons
that explain to children the dangers of eating those foods. The fact
is children really ARE impressionable and good influence can have just
as much of an impact as bad. They could make the adds just as
entertaining as the despicable adds making children want to eat junk
that will DESTROY THEIR HEALTH. This is the moral thing to do. This
is what would save millions of lives. This is why other LESS CORRUPT
countries ban advertising to children moron. Why dont you think a
little deeper about things next time. Im sorry but when it comes to
children there really is no excuse for not protecting them with
whatever mesures are required. It is sad and disturbing that you and
many others think otherwise. Greed and Profit is the excuse of
industry. What is yours.

Quoted message said:

I think this legislation, which only prevents the food companies from not
being sued for making people fat, is in the best interests of the public.
Otherwise, the food companies will have to raise prices and do other
negative things for people not using their brains.

The only interests this legislation(like most other legislation)
serves are those of the corporate pay masters who own our supposed
representatives. This only further enhances powerlessness of the
public over the ever increasing dominance of corporate entities and
industries.

"Jeff" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<cgtk92

Quoted message said:

And parents are responsible for helping kids make these decisions and learn
how to make them well.

What a dumb ass. So MILLIONS of kids must suffer because of the
millions of unfit parents in the world? FACE THE FACTS!! THERE ARE
UNFIT PARENTS!!!! That will never change! That is no excuse to let
immoral corporations pray off their children!! What an absurdity. I
can not even begin to describe how moronic and thoughtless your logic
is. Do you even think about the absurd argument you are making? How
about the children WHO HAVE NO PARENTS!! We are talking about innocent
impressionable, easily manipulated children here who have no control
over what kind of parents they have and in many cases nothing to
counter the constant bombardment of corporate mind control. How about
instead forcing these corporations to pay for adds that explain to
children the dangers of eating those foods. The fact is children
really ARE impressionable and good influence can have just as much of
an impact as bad. They could make the adds just as entertaining as
the despicable adds making children want to eat junk that will DESTROY
THEIR HEALTH. This is the moral thing to do. This is what would save
millions of lives. This is why other LESS CORRUPT countries ban
advertising to children(among many other public policies that benefit
PEOPLE over industry). Something that does not happen in the US. Why
dont you think a little deeper about things next time. Im sorry but
when it comes to children there really is no excuse for not protecting
them with whatever mesures are required. It is sad and disturbing
that you and many others think otherwise. Greed and Profit is the
excuse of industry. What is yours.

Quoted message said:

I think this legislation, which only prevents the food companies from not
being sued for making people fat, is in the best interests of the public.
Otherwise, the food companies will have to raise prices and do other
negative things for people not using their brains.

The only interests this legislation(like most other legislation)
serves are those of the corporate pay masters who own our supposed
representatives. This only further enhances powerlessness of the
public over the ever increasing dominance of corporate entities and
industries.

it's a conspiracy to poison us with added benefit to them (Illuminati
corporations) of robbing us too http://www.whale.to/b/junk.html

"DonQuijote1954" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

The legislation is moving to protect, of course, the rights of the
food corporations not to be sued. How can they ever be on the side of
the public? Even the new sugar intake guidelines is watered down to
say nothing that offends big food corporations. They argue that
whoever eats junk food is responsible for it...

It happens though that you can argue the same thing for cigarettes,
whose manufacturers are very much liable for it. And then there's the
other issue of smoking being a decision that you take when you are an
adult, not a helpless child in front of the television screen who's
bombarded with "Happy Meal" propaganda.

Sure enough, there's legislation banning advertising on children
television in Denmark and other Scandinavian countries. Should others
be protected as well?

Eateries Push for Obesity Suit Protection

Sat Aug 28, 4:33 PM ET

By IRA DREYFUSS, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Bills to protect restaurants and food companies against
lawsuits by people who claim the meals or snacks made them fat are
moving ahead in the states like hamburgers passed out a drive-thru
window.

Measures known as "cheeseburger bills" bar people from seeking damages
in court from food companies for weight gain and associated medical
conditions, including heart disease and diabetes.

Supporters say the proposals shield businesses from having to pay to
defend themselves against frivolous suits. Opponents contend the
claims often are valid and ought to be heard in court.

Two cases against McDonald's accused the company of causing obesity in
thousands of children. In dismissing the cases last year, U.S.
District Judge Robert Sweet in New York said consumers ought to know
that eating lots of fast food can make them fat and that they cannot
ask courts to "protect them from their own excesses."

That ruling has not stopped lawyers from holding conferences on how to
win such claims. Also, the possibility of a legal defeat haunts the
food industry, whose leaders say they should not be held responsible
for people's eating decisions.

Many lawmakers agree.

So far this year, a dozen states have enacted laws against such suits,
according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

A Washington state law prohibits people from suing food manufacturers,
sellers and advertisers based on claims arising from people's weight
gain, obesity, or related health conditions.

The law, backed by the state restaurant association, keeps the
responsibility for eating where it belongs, said Democratic state Rep.
Patricia Lantz.

"It was so common sense," said Lantz, a trial lawyer who heads the
House Judiciary Committee (news - web sites) in her state. "Most
people don't see any reason to impose liability for an individual's
inability to push himself away from the dinner table."

Similar bills have won approval in other states. But efforts at
passing a national shield have faltered in Congress.

One bill, sponsored by Rep. Ric Keller (news, bio, voting record),
R-Fla., was passed by the House. A second, sponsored by Sen. Mitch
McConnell (news, bio, voting record), R-Ky., is before a Senate
Judiciary Committee subcommittee.

The prospects that a ban will pass are not good because time is
running out on the congressional calendar and lawmakers are facing
re-election in November.

The issue is politically charged. Republicans say companies need
protection from greedy lawyers. Democrats say that the courts should
decide whether the cases are worth hearing.

Some consumer advocates also oppose the laws. "These cheeseburger
bills are shameful efforts to deprive the public of the right to have
a day in court if they feel they have been aggrieved," said Michael
Jacobson, executive director of the Center for Science in the Public
Interest.

Class-action lawyers will find ways around the state laws, and big
fast-food companies could be their targets, predicts John Banzhaf,
professor of public interest law at George Washington University.

Banzhaf, who favors the suits, said companies could be vulnerable for
failing to tell customers how much fat is in their food.

"Is it a shoo-in? No," said Banzhaf, who helped mastermind suits
against the tobacco industry. "But if we pick our plaintiffs
carefully, the guy who eats there every day, we can make our cases
stick."

http://committed.to/justiceforpeace

more...

http://engforum.pravda.ru/showthread.php3?threadid=94094

Jeff said:

"DonQuijote1954" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

parents--being uneducated--are just as victims as the kids. And

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

blaming them would amount to never ever doing something.

Yeah, but the key is education, not stupid laws.

Jeff

Stupid laws created the problem. Revision of stupid laws might perhaps
helps to solve it. Here are some key quotes from a recent article
Harvard Magazine Online:

http://www.harvard-magazine.com/on-line/050465.html

Ludwig:
"There's the incessant advertising and marketing of the poorest
quality foods imaginable. To address this epidemic, you'd want to make
healthful foods widely available, inexpensive, and convenient, and
unhealthful foods relatively less so. Instead, we've done the opposite."

Gortmaker:
"The food industry's major objective is to get us to intake more food,"
says . "And the TV industry's objective is to get us to watch more
television, to be sedentary. Advertising is the action that keeps them
both successful. So you've got two huge industries being successful at
what they are supposed to do: creating more intake and less activity.
And since larger people require more food energy just to sustain
themselves, the food industry is growing a larger market for itself."

Willett:
"That industry spends billions of dollars on research... What we spend
on nutrition education is only in the tens of millions of dollars
annually. There's a huge imbalance, and it tips more and more in favor
of the food industry every year. Food executives like to say, 'Just
educate the consumer-- when they create the demand for healthier food,
we'll supply it!' That's a bit disingenuous when you consider that they
are already spending billions to 'educate' consumers."

Ludwig questions farm subsidies of "billions to the lowest-quality
foods"--for example, grains like corn ("for corn sweeteners and animal
feed to make Big Macs"😉 and wheat ("refined carbohydrates."😉 Meanwhile,
the government does *not* subsidize far healthier items like fruits,
vegetables, beans, and nuts.

Ludwig :
"It's a perverse situation," he says. "The foods that are the worst for
us have an artificially low price, and the best foods cost more. This
is worse than a free market: we are creating a mirror-world here."

"cde" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Jeff said:

"DonQuijote1954" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

parents--being uneducated--are just as victims as the kids. And

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

blaming them would amount to never ever doing something.

Yeah, but the key is education, not stupid laws.

Jeff

Stupid laws created the problem. Revision of stupid laws might perhaps
helps to solve it. Here are some key quotes from a recent article
Harvard Magazine Online:

http://www.harvard-magazine.com/on-line/050465.html

Ludwig:
"There's the incessant advertising and marketing of the poorest
quality foods imaginable. To address this epidemic, you'd want to make
healthful foods widely available, inexpensive, and convenient, and
unhealthful foods relatively less so. Instead, we've done the opposite."

Because people buy the unhealthy foods.

Quoted message said:

Gortmaker:
"The food industry's major objective is to get us to intake more food,"
says . "And the TV industry's objective is to get us to watch more
television, to be sedentary. Advertising is the action that keeps them
both successful. So you've got two huge industries being successful at
what they are supposed to do: creating more intake and less activity.
And since larger people require more food energy just to sustain
themselves, the food industry is growing a larger market for itself."

And I don't remember anyone forcing people to watch TV or go to eat
unhealthy food.

Quoted message said:

Willett:
"That industry spends billions of dollars on research... What we spend
on nutrition education is only in the tens of millions of dollars
annually. There's a huge imbalance, and it tips more and more in favor
of the food industry every year. Food executives like to say, 'Just
educate the consumer-- when they create the demand for healthier food,
we'll supply it!' That's a bit disingenuous when you consider that they
are already spending billions to 'educate' consumers."

Ludwig questions farm subsidies of "billions to the lowest-quality
foods"--for example, grains like corn ("for corn sweeteners and animal
feed to make Big Macs"😉 and wheat ("refined carbohydrates."😉 Meanwhile,
the government does *not* subsidize far healthier items like fruits,
vegetables, beans, and nuts.

I have no problem with subsidizing farmers. Just with making suing
restaurants for providing a legal and safe product, when taken in
moderation.

Quoted message said:

Ludwig :
"It's a perverse situation," he says. "The foods that are the worst for
us have an artificially low price, and the best foods cost more. This
is worse than a free market: we are creating a mirror-world here."

Then fix the problem with the price of the food.

Jeff

"Wolfbrother" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Jeff" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<cgtk92

Quoted message said:

And parents are responsible for helping kids make these decisions and

learn

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

how to make them well.

What a dumb ass. So MILLIONS of kids must suffer because of the
millions of unfit parents in the world? FACE THE FACTS!! THERE ARE
UNFIT PARENTS!!!! That will never change! That is no excuse to let
immoral corporations pray off them!!

You mean immoral corporations are going to chruch?

Quoted message said:

Bombarding easily manipulated
children with their mind control. I can not even describe how moronic
your logic is. Do you even think about the absurd argument you are
making? We are talking about innocent impressionable children here
who have no control over what kind of parents they have. How about
instead forcing these corporations to pay for adds during cartoons
that explain to children the dangers of eating those foods. The fact
is children really ARE impressionable and good influence can have just
as much of an impact as bad. They could make the adds just as
entertaining as the despicable adds making children want to eat junk
that will DESTROY THEIR HEALTH. This is the moral thing to do. This
is what would save millions of lives. This is why other LESS CORRUPT
countries ban advertising to children moron. Why dont you think a
little deeper about things next time. Im sorry but when it comes to
children there really is no excuse for not protecting them with
whatever mesures are required. It is sad and disturbing that you and
many others think otherwise. Greed and Profit is the excuse of
industry. What is yours.

The health of kids.

However, lettting people sue corporations for something the corporations are
not responsible for is stupid, IMHO.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I think this legislation, which only prevents the food companies from

not

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

being sued for making people fat, is in the best interests of the

public.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Otherwise, the food companies will have to raise prices and do other
negative things for people not using their brains.

The only interests this legislation(like most other legislation)
serves are those of the corporate pay masters who own our supposed
representatives. This only further enhances powerlessness of the
public over the ever increasing dominance of corporate entities and
industries.

The public has the power to vote the legislations out of office.

However, I think the legislation is good legislation. It would be much
better to ban fat food from schools - no soda, chips, candy, etc., sold in
schools. Make schools a healthier place to be.

That would be a positive start.

Jeff

"john" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

it's a conspiracy to poison us with added benefit to them (Illuminati
corporations) of robbing us too http://www.whale.to/b/junk.html

The whale to site is the biggest joke on the internet. The author doesn't
even put her name on it. Who can blame her? The site is clearly written by
someone who doesn't have a clue about medicine, scinece or vaccines.

Quoted message said:

"DonQuijote1954" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

The legislation is moving to protect, of course, the rights of the
food corporations not to be sued. How can they ever be on the side of
the public? Even the new sugar intake guidelines is watered down to
say nothing that offends big food corporations. They argue that
whoever eats junk food is responsible for it...

It happens though that you can argue the same thing for cigarettes,
whose manufacturers are very much liable for it. And then there's the
other issue of smoking being a decision that you take when you are an
adult, not a helpless child in front of the television screen who's
bombarded with "Happy Meal" propaganda.

Sure enough, there's legislation banning advertising on children
television in Denmark and other Scandinavian countries. Should others
be protected as well?

Eateries Push for Obesity Suit Protection

Sat Aug 28, 4:33 PM ET

By IRA DREYFUSS, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Bills to protect restaurants and food companies against
lawsuits by people who claim the meals or snacks made them fat are
moving ahead in the states like hamburgers passed out a drive-thru
window.

Measures known as "cheeseburger bills" bar people from seeking damages
in court from food companies for weight gain and associated medical
conditions, including heart disease and diabetes.

Supporters say the proposals shield businesses from having to pay to
defend themselves against frivolous suits. Opponents contend the
claims often are valid and ought to be heard in court.

Two cases against McDonald's accused the company of causing obesity in
thousands of children. In dismissing the cases last year, U.S.
District Judge Robert Sweet in New York said consumers ought to know
that eating lots of fast food can make them fat and that they cannot
ask courts to "protect them from their own excesses."

That ruling has not stopped lawyers from holding conferences on how to
win such claims. Also, the possibility of a legal defeat haunts the
food industry, whose leaders say they should not be held responsible
for people's eating decisions.

Many lawmakers agree.

So far this year, a dozen states have enacted laws against such suits,
according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

A Washington state law prohibits people from suing food manufacturers,
sellers and advertisers based on claims arising from people's weight
gain, obesity, or related health conditions.

The law, backed by the state restaurant association, keeps the
responsibility for eating where it belongs, said Democratic state Rep.
Patricia Lantz.

"It was so common sense," said Lantz, a trial lawyer who heads the
House Judiciary Committee (news - web sites) in her state. "Most
people don't see any reason to impose liability for an individual's
inability to push himself away from the dinner table."

Similar bills have won approval in other states. But efforts at
passing a national shield have faltered in Congress.

One bill, sponsored by Rep. Ric Keller (news, bio, voting record),
R-Fla., was passed by the House. A second, sponsored by Sen. Mitch
McConnell (news, bio, voting record), R-Ky., is before a Senate
Judiciary Committee subcommittee.

The prospects that a ban will pass are not good because time is
running out on the congressional calendar and lawmakers are facing
re-election in November.

The issue is politically charged. Republicans say companies need
protection from greedy lawyers. Democrats say that the courts should
decide whether the cases are worth hearing.

Some consumer advocates also oppose the laws. "These cheeseburger
bills are shameful efforts to deprive the public of the right to have
a day in court if they feel they have been aggrieved," said Michael
Jacobson, executive director of the Center for Science in the Public
Interest.

Class-action lawyers will find ways around the state laws, and big
fast-food companies could be their targets, predicts John Banzhaf,
professor of public interest law at George Washington University.

Banzhaf, who favors the suits, said companies could be vulnerable for
failing to tell customers how much fat is in their food.

"Is it a shoo-in? No," said Banzhaf, who helped mastermind suits
against the tobacco industry. "But if we pick our plaintiffs
carefully, the guy who eats there every day, we can make our cases
stick."

http://committed.to/justiceforpeace

more...

http://engforum.pravda.ru/showthread.php3?threadid=94094

cde <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Jeff said:

"DonQuijote1954" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

parents--being uneducated--are just as victims as the kids. And

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

blaming them would amount to never ever doing something.

Yeah, but the key is education, not stupid laws.

Jeff

Stupid laws created the problem. Revision of stupid laws might perhaps
helps to solve it. Here are some key quotes from a recent article
Harvard Magazine Online:

http://www.harvard-magazine.com/on-line/050465.html

Ludwig:
"There's the incessant advertising and marketing of the poorest
quality foods imaginable. To address this epidemic, you'd want to make
healthful foods widely available, inexpensive, and convenient, and
unhealthful foods relatively less so. Instead, we've done the opposite."

Gortmaker:
"The food industry's major objective is to get us to intake more food,"
says . "And the TV industry's objective is to get us to watch more
television, to be sedentary. Advertising is the action that keeps them
both successful. So you've got two huge industries being successful at
what they are supposed to do: creating more intake and less activity.
And since larger people require more food energy just to sustain
themselves, the food industry is growing a larger market for itself."

Willett:
"That industry spends billions of dollars on research... What we spend
on nutrition education is only in the tens of millions of dollars
annually. There's a huge imbalance, and it tips more and more in favor
of the food industry every year. Food executives like to say, 'Just
educate the consumer-- when they create the demand for healthier food,
we'll supply it!' That's a bit disingenuous when you consider that they
are already spending billions to 'educate' consumers."

Ludwig questions farm subsidies of "billions to the lowest-quality
foods"--for example, grains like corn ("for corn sweeteners and animal
feed to make Big Macs"😉 and wheat ("refined carbohydrates."😉 Meanwhile,
the government does *not* subsidize far healthier items like fruits,
vegetables, beans, and nuts.

Ludwig :
"It's a perverse situation," he says. "The foods that are the worst for
us have an artificially low price, and the best foods cost more. This
is worse than a free market: we are creating a mirror-world here."

Nice quotes, and nice link. We must be aware of what's at stake here:
Some greedy corporations--and even a few school boards--preying on
small children. I'd venture an epithet: CHILD ABUSE.

Isn't this Child Abuse?

Schools Peddling Junk Food to Kids

By David Nakamura

Through contracts with soft drink companies and other vendors, some
schools are raising as much as $100,000 a year, money that pays for
such
things as computer rewiring, teacher training and Black History Month
activities.
Read the fine print of those contracts, though, and the costs start to
sink in: One school in Prince George's County guaranteed sales of
4,500
cases of soda a year -- or about 50 sodas a student.
Some contracts state that schools could lose money if they turn off
the
machines at lunchtime, as required by state and federal law.
The biggest cost, some parents and health advocates say, is the health
risk to students in a system that gives schools a financial interest
in
selling them more snacks.
One recent study linked soft drinks to childhood obesity, and others
point to tooth decay and caffeine dependence -- findings that the soda
industry disputes.-
The U.S. Agriculture Department delivered a stinging report to
Congress
last month recommending that all snacks sold in schools meet the
federal
government's nutritional standards.
"One of the biggest challenges school meal program managers face is
the
competition with foods that are marketed to children through
multimillion-dollar, glitzy and sophisticated advertising campaigns,"
the report stated.
The explosion of vending machines in public schools is a relatively
new
phenomenon.
As recently as a decade ago, such machines were uncommon on campus.
But
as principals and PTAs began to recognize the potential payoff of
vending revenue during a time of increasingly tight school budgets,
the
number grew quickly.
Increasingly, school districts are signing exclusive deals with one
soda
company or vendor. Charles County, for instance, signed a 10-year,
$1.75
million deal last year to sell only Coke products in its schools.
Some communities, though, have fought against the proliferation of
snack
machines in schools. In Philadelphia last year, parent activists
successfully blocked a proposed 10-year, $43 million deal between the
school system and Coca-Cola. Last week, the New York Board of
Education
settled a 1999 class-action lawsuit brought by parents. An agreement
was
reached that schools can sell only nutritious snacks during lunch
hour.
In exchange, Blair promised to place a minimum of 18 soft drink
machines
throughout the school and ensure that the student population remained
above 2,100. The machines are on all day, despite a federal law
prohibiting schools from selling such products during lunch hours and
a
Maryland law prohibiting schools from turning on vending machines
until
after the final lunch period.
Small wonder. The contract contains a clause that reads: "If the Board
of Education actively enforces the policy in which vending machines
are
turned off during the school day, the commission guarantee will be
suspended."
To many parents, the vending machine contracts are a necessary evil.
But
these are the parents who are clueless about the importance of diet as
it relates to health.
Washington Post February 27, 2001; Page A01

DR. MERCOLA'S COMMENT:
This report, along with the published scientific evidence, should
serve
as a rallying cry to parents who want their children to be educated in
an environment conducive to learning and free of junk food that will
hinder their health, both physically and mentally.
Even if your child avoids the soda machines, if other kids are
drinking
it, this may affect other kids, since the tremendous amounts of sugar
will cause behavioral problems or worsen existing ones.
I would encourage everyone concerned about this issue to contact your
local Board of Education, as well as local state representatives.
DEMAND
that our childrens' health be put before profit.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It happens though that you can argue the same thing for cigarettes,

whose manufacturers are very much liable for it. And then there's the
other issue of smoking being a decision that you take when you are an
adult, not a helpless child in front of the television screen who's
bombarded with "Happy Meal" propaganda.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Sure enough, there's legislation banning advertising on children

television in Denmark and other Scandinavian countries. Should others
be protected as well?

Interesting question- I do wonder though when the responsibility lies
on the parents. At the end they are the ones paying for what their
kids consume, and also are the ones setting the example for thier
children. IMO it's hard to point the blame at these companies when it
is the parents who should be teaching their children about the
importance of nutrition and exercise.

"David vs. Goliath"
A most important article. It shows that Americans have little chance
against advertising, which outspends government "healthy guidelines"
hundreds of times.

This is no joke...

"The government's entire budget on nutrition education is estimated at
just a fifth of the advertising budget for Altoids mints"

And I hope this is serious...

"No matter how it happens, though, nutrition activists say corporate
America must bear some responsibility for obesity."

Whose Fault Is Fat?
Experts Weigh Holding Food Companies Responsible for Obesity

By Geraldine Sealey

So we're fat --61 percent of us. We're gluttons, supersizing our fries
and indulging in whopper-sized cinnamon buns at the mall.

But obesity is not just an American image crisis --it's fast becoming
our most serious public health problem. Indeed, obesity now rivals
smoking in its deadliness and is linked to diseases such as type-2
diabetes, heart disease, and certain types of cancer.

An estimated 300,000 Americans die each year from fat-related causes,
and we spent $117 billion in obesity-related economic costs just last
year, U.S. Surgeon General David Satcher reported last month.

Conventional wisdom says our obesity stems from laziness, lack of
willpower or a fast-paced lifestyle that prevents healthy eating and
exercise. We already spend up to an estimated $50 billion a year on
diet and weight loss products --are we really just not trying hard
enough?

While individuals surely bear responsibility for what they eat and
whether they move, some nutrition and legal experts say we may not be
entirely at fault.

Some say the food industry --particularly fast food, vending machine
and processed food companies-- should be held accountable for playing
a role in the declining health of the nation, just as the tobacco
industry ultimately was forced to bear responsibility for public
health costs associated with smoking in its landmark $206 billion
settlement with the states.

Although no one is taking such legal action against the food industry,
nutrition and legal experts say it is reasonable to think that
someday, it may come to that.

"There is a movement afoot to do something about the obesity problem,
not just as a visual blight but to see it in terms of costs," says
John Banzhaf, a George Washington University Law School professor.

The Case for Fat Suits

Most public health experts agree that regulations or taxes would be
better than legal action, but they are mindful that after years of
going after Big Tobacco, anti-smoking forces only achieved success
when plaintiffs and lawyers stepped in.

No matter how it happens, though, nutrition activists say corporate
America must bear some responsibility for obesity.

They point to a David and Goliath-like imbalance between the
government's nutrition education spending and the food industry's $30
billion advertising budget. Only 2 percent of the industry's ad
dollars go to promote fruits, vegetables, whole grains and beans,
according to watchdog group Center for Science in the Public Interest.
Most ads lure Americans toward high-fat, high-calorie, large-portion
food.

While McDonald's reportedly spent $500 million on the "We love to see
you smile" ad campaign, the National Cancer Institute's "5-a-Day"
campaign spends about $1 million a year to promote eating five daily
servings of fruits and vegetables.

The government's entire budget on nutrition education is estimated at
just a fifth of the advertising budget for Altoids mints, says Marion
Nestle, a New York University professor and author of the soon-to-be
released Food Politics: How the Food Industry Manipulates What We Eat
to the Detriment of Our Health.

"It's not fair," Nestle said. "People are confronted with food in
every possible way to eat more. The function of the food industry is
to get people to eat more, not less."

to be continued...

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/D...lame020122.html

continues...
Some said here that junk food corporations don't mislead the public?

"For its part, the food industry claims that its products are not
directly linked to obesity and have pointed to Americans' lack of
exercise as a major factor contributing to our fatness."

Targeting Saturday Morning Fare

The purpose behind suing food companies would be both philosophical
and economic and resembles the logic of the tobacco litigation,
explains Banzhaf, who helped craft the tobacco lawsuits. "If there are
products the use of which cause large costs, grave costs, it is better
that the burden of those costs fall on people who use and make the
products rather than third parties or the general public," he said.

For some, it may be difficult to buy the argument that companies
should be blamed for what adults eat. For that reason, some health
experts suggest that a campaign against marketing junk food to
children would be more successful, just as the anti-smoking forces
went after Joe Camel ads.

Four out of five food ads market products attractive to kids, CSPI
says, such as sugary cereal, snack food, soft drinks and fast food.

For years, nutrition activists have attempted, unsuccessfully, to get
junk food ads off Saturday morning television, long the domain of
commercials featuring kid-friendly characters hawking sugary,
high-calorie foods.

Junk food in schools has also been the longtime bane of many nutrition
experts. Although school lunches must meet federal dietary standards,
vending machines and snack bars are not required to withstand
nutritional scrutiny and often bring multi-million dollar contracts
between corporations and school districts.

"Certainly, fast food is marketed overtly to children and my guess is
if you looked closely around the internal documents of the fast food
industry and processed food industry it would shock me if they didn't
have very sophisticated studies about their consumers," said Richard
Nagareda, Vanderbilt University Law School professor. "Whether you can
take that to the level of a successful lawsuit is not so clear."

Message from Government: 'Just Do It'

For its part, the food industry claims that its products are not
directly linked to obesity and have pointed to Americans' lack of
exercise as a major factor contributing to our fatness. Less than a
third of all Americans exercise as much as doctors advise.

The American Dietetic Association also stresses that a healthy diet
depends on variety, balance and moderation for all foods and
beverages, and does not recommend restricting specific foods or
ingredients for weight management.

Even surgeon general Satcher did not recommend policy changes aimed at
the food industry when he released his report last month, although he
told an interviewer: "That doesn't mean Congress can't read the report
and decide that we need it."

Instead, Satcher's report recommended that families, communities,
businesses, the health care system and the media all work together to
get America eating right and exercising. The official message from the
government: It is our responsibility to stay healthy and help others
to do so, too.

This message is especially pertinent in lower-income communities,
then, where it is most often easier to find a greasy burger and fries
than a fresh head of lettuce. According to the surgeon general, women
of lower socioeconomic status are about 50 percent more likely to be
obese than their better-off counterparts.

[And so poverty and lack of education do play a major role in having
no food choices and obesity.]

"options, options, options"

So many things we can do, so little time...

"effective government regulation may never come as long as food
companies continue donating money to politicians"

'Equal Time' for Veggies, Junk

Lawsuits against food companies are currently legal long shots,
experts say. Some say government regulations, taxes and changes in
insurance premiums are preferable and would achieve the same goals.
Potential regulations could include requiring "equal time" for junk
food and healthy food in vending machines, banning sugary drinks and
high-calorie foods from schools, and requiring all restaurants to
include nutritional information on their menus.

The non-profit group Center for Science in the Public Interest has
proposed a small tax on soft drinks. A penny tax on every 12 ounces of
soda or sugary soft drink sold would yield $1.5 billion in revenues to
pay for nutrition or physical education programs, says Margo Wootan of
CSPI.

Another option is differential health insurance rates for those who
cannot control their weight, says law professor John Banzhaf, just as
life insurance premiums are higher for smokers. "That doesn't get back
at the manufacturers, but it gets back at the people who use," he
said, "If life insurance companies were not charging smokers more we
would be outraged."

Changes in laws, policies and taxes might help Americans recognize the
gravity of obesity, experts say.

"I want to get to the point where people are in the hallway and see a
vending machine and say, 'That's bad, that shouldn't be there,' in the
same way as if they saw a cigarette vending machine," says Tom Farley
of the Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical
Medicine.

But as with the tobacco case, effective government regulation may
never come as long as food companies continue donating money to
politicians, some say. "The food industry may well turn out to be as
entrenched [as the tobacco industry]," says Richard Daynard, a law
professor at Northeastern University who was involved in the tobacco
litigation.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/D...lame020122.html

"Ignoramus4234" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

But, advertising is not necessarily as all powerful as you may
think. All that is necessary to be immune to it is not watching TV.
TV is designed to make people stuipd and receptive to advertising.

I think you have to make the distinction between grown up adults and kids.
Kids tend to be more permeable to "fashion", including in food, because they
have a strong urge to fit in. You can always ban the TV at home, but you
can't ban it from their friends houses. I don't think adds for junk food are
a problem with adults, but it *is* a problem when you get a flood of it
while kids are watching TV. It's also a problem when you even have it on
educationnal programs that kids sometimes watch in school.
Another problem is that many ads are borderline scams. They hint to
properties such as "full of energy" (yes, hydrogenated fats), "healthy",
"full of iron" (which most people do not need), "with a bunch of vitamins"
(which you probably don't need, and also a bunch of corn syrup, hyd. fats,
sodium...). France and Europe *almost* passed a law to restrict such claims
*very* harshly (compared to the mild restriction we currently have that bans
food products from masquerading as health enhancing drugs), but the
politicians backed off when the food industry started to complain. These ads
are a real problem on kids and uneducated adults. Who wouldn't want to be
"full of energy" and "healthy"?

Quoted message said:

Similarly, all that is necessary to be safe from junk food
corporations as far as nutrition is concerned, is not eating junk
food.

The whole problem is that junk food themselves is not bad. I mean, you can
have a Big Mac once a month, it won't prevent you from having a healthy diet
and a normal weight. Or you can have some industrial cookie once in a while.
There are ways to fit a reasonnable amount of these food into a reasonnable
diet. Especially with over-active kids who burn a lot of calories. If you
ban these foods totally, you're going to create a taboo effect that will
make them all the more attractive, especially to kids. Just like cigarettes
are attractive to them. Or like alcohol was during the prohibition. Creating
"bad food" (which you should *never* eat) and "good food" (which you can eat
in unlimited amounts) categories is a dangerous concept, and a mechanism at
the root of eating disorders such as bingeing.
What you must ban is the over-consumption of these food that ads contribute
to create. False or innacurate or unproven claims, especially health claims,
should be tracked and punished as a form of fraud, because that's exactly
what it is. Something that is loaded with trans fats and/or corn syrup
should not be able to claim any positive health or energy effect, just
because it has some vitamin C added as an anti-oxydant.

"Jeff" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

The public has the power to vote the legislations out of office.

However, I think the legislation is good legislation. It would be much
better to ban fat food from schools - no soda, chips, candy, etc., sold in
schools. Make schools a healthier place to be.

That would be a positive start.

Jeff

OK, I'm not going to argue either about the corporations'
responsibility, since I also agree on this solution. 😉

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

UNFIT PARENTS!!!! That will never change! That is no excuse to let
immoral corporations pray off them!!

You mean immoral corporations are going to chruch?

Quoted message said:

Bombarding easily manipulated
children with their mind control.

Hmm... So corporations are praying and going to church (when they are
not busy controlling our minds, of course). I think this thread needs
an Aluminum Foil Deflector Beanie ;-)
http://zapatopi.net/afdb.html

Live Long and Prosper!
DrumLib

Vitamin Price Comparison
(including price based on standardized dose)
http://www.drumlib.com/bestprice.htm

"DonQuijote1954" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Jeff" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Then fix the problem with the price of the food.

OK, it's a deal. And the lawyers don't get any money with that, to boot.

Anyway, we will be required to phase out our subsides to agriculture sooner
or later. We won't be able to compete with the Third World on the matter of
prices, because once the subsides are lowered, they will be way cheaper than
us. The only sustainable goal is to produce *quality* rather than quantity.
We should be pouring *all* our subsides towards farmers who are willing to
switch to sustainable or organic agriculture, who are willing to get the
animals back to the fields and proper food instead of powders. And *no*
subside should go to the farmers who are merely producing good to use in
industrial processes (corn, low quality soya...).
That would be a first step in increasing the availability of quality food.
If we can't tax junk food, at least we can stop giving tax money to the
manufacturers.